People v. Gimmy, 79CA0060
| Decision Date | 05 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79CA0060,79CA0060 |
| Citation | 44 Colo.App. 352,620 P.2d 42 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry M. GIMMY, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., William Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Robert Breindel, Deputy Colorado State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The issue in this appeal is whether the habitual criminal statute applies where the underlying felonies arise from convictions that were all entered on the same day. We conclude that it does, and therefore affirm the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon defendant as an habitual criminal pursuant to § 16-13-101(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).
In August of 1978, Jerry Michael Gimmy was charged by information with a variety of offenses, including the charge that he was an habitual criminal by virtue of his having been convicted of three prior felonies. A jury found Gimmy guilty of aggravated robbery and additionally found that he had previously been convicted of three felonies.
Subsequent to that trial, Gimmy pled guilty to a separate offense and the court again adjudged him to be an habitual criminal. On January 5, 1979, he was sentenced, and he appeals his adjudications as an habitual criminal and the sentences imposed.
As pertinent here, § 16-13-101(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), provides:
"Every person convicted in this state of any felony, who has been three times previously convicted, upon charges separately brought and tried ... of a felony ... shall be adjudged an habitual criminal ...."
It is not disputed that Gimmy was convicted of at least three previous felonies upon charges separately brought: Forgery on May 20, 1977, aggravated robbery and robbery on December 14, 1973, and welfare fraud on December 14, 1973. He asserts however, that because some of these felony convictions were obtained in the same court on the same day, following acceptance of guilty pleas, the requirement of the statute that a defendant be previously convicted of three felonies "upon charges separately brought and tried" has not been met. Gimmy contends that the robbery convictions and the welfare fraud conviction should be considered as only one conviction for purposes of enhancement of sentence under § 16-13-101(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). We do not agree.
The convictions in question were for entirely distinct offenses. The record establishes that the convictions arose from separate criminal episodes occurring on different dates, and that the charges were brought in separate criminal actions, initially scheduled for trial on different dates, which could not have been consolidated and tried together. See Crim.P. 13; Brown v. District Court, 197 Colo. 219, 591 P.2d 99, (1979). At the Crim.P. 11 providency hearing the trial court treated the guilty pleas as individual criminal matters, issued separate judgments of conviction, and imposed separate sentences for the offenses, although the sentences were to run concurrently. We conclude that under the circumstances these convictions resulted from "charges separately brought and tried," and the fact that they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gimmy v. People
...R. Mueller, Special Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner Hodge. DUBOFSKY, Justice. We granted certiorari in People v. Gimmy, Colo.App., 620 P.2d 42 (1980); People v. Johnson, Colo.App., Nos. 78 CA 159 and 78 CA 160 (1980); People v. Germany, 41 Colo.App. 304, 586 P.2d 1006 (1978);......
-
People v. Ramirez
...commission of the act which gives rise to the conviction, and not the time when conviction occurs, which controls. See People v. Gimmy, Colo.App., 620 P.2d 42 (1980) (cert. granted June 8, 1981). The third and fourth convictions were properly considered as separate convictions for the purpo......
-
People v. Germany
...in separate actions and the defendant entered a plea of guilty to each charge on a different date. Given these facts, People v. Gimmy, Colo.App., 620 P.2d 42 (1980), is dispositive of defendant's Judgment affirmed. ENOCH, C. J., and COYTE, J., concur. ...
-
People v. Trujillo, 97CA0869.
...19-2-517(1)(a), is to punish more severely those individuals who show a propensity toward repeated criminal conduct. People v. Gimmy, 44 Colo.App. 352, 620 P.2d 42 (1980), aff'd, 645 P.2d 262 (Colo.1982); see also People v. District Court, 711 P.2d 666 (Colo.1985). The corresponding deterre......